Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditya Sarda vs Neeta Sarda & Ors on 31 July, 2024
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~13 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 354/2023
ADITYA SARDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Nitika Grover
and Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advs.
versus
NEETA SARDA & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Mr. Gaurav
Kejriwal, Mr. Ankit Kohli and Mr.
Arjun Aggarwal, Advs.
14
+ RFA 461/2016
NEETA SARDA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Mr. Gaurav
Kejriwal, Mr. Ankit Kohli and Mr.
Arjun Aggarwal, Advs.
versus
ADITYA SARDA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Nitika Grover
and Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 31.07.2024 CM APPL. 13492/2023 (exemption) in CONT.CAS(C) 354/2023
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2024 at 22:31:45
2. Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 354/2023
3. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, let the contempt case be listed on 06.08.2024.
REVIEW PET. 429/2019 in RFA 461/2016
4. This review petition has been filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.03.2018 in SLP No. 6762/2018.
5. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner contends that the Court, in sub-paragraph D of paragraph 40, concluded that the compromise was not in conformity with Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was observed that the compromise was not documented in writing and signed by the parties but was merely reflected in the order dated 08.08.2011.
6. Learned counsel then draws the attention of the Court to sub-paragraph N of paragraph 40 and paragraph 45 of the impugned judgment, which is the subject matter of the review petition to emphasizes that, applying the same reasoning, the Court should not have recorded the compromise based solely on the consent reached between the parties.
7. The Court is unable to comprehend as to how such a ground can be legitimately raised within the purview of review jurisdiction.
8. The Supreme Court videjudgment dated 24.02.2023 in Civil Appeal No.1167/2023 titled as S. Murli Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan has unequivocally affirmed the position that the review would be maintainable only in case where the Court finds that there has been error apparent on the face of record. The Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations in Jothibai Kannan (supra):-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2024 at 22:31:45 "5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminemgravabit."
5.2 It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
5.3 In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra), it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that an error which is not selfevident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2024 at 22:31:45
9. The Court is unable to discern any error apparent on the face of the record. What is sought to be argued is the sustainability of the judgment on merits. The arguments do not substantiate that the Court has either ignored the principles of natural justice or considered irrelevant material. In light of the aforesaid, the review petition is hereby dismissed. CM APPL. 20292/2023 (by the appellants for seeking clarification of judgment and order dated 05.09.2018)
10. This application has been filed on the basis of liberty being accorded by the Additional District Judge - 05, South, Saket Districts Court, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.390/15 to move this Court for clarification.
11. The Court is perplexed as to how the Additional District Judge can grant such liberty. The learned Judge's role is confined to either accept or reject the application. The liberty being accorded unmindful of the consequences to follow, would necessarily result in judicial indiscipline. The same seems to have effect of advising the litigant to approach the higher court, which power conspicuously is not vested with the subordinate court.
12. The application appears to be misconceived and, consequently, stands dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 31, 2024/P This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2024 at 22:31:45